alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued September 26, 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 23
- 003 19
- CV

——————————— ANGELA D. DOWLING
- PEREZ , Appellant

V. LEGACY AT CYPRESS , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1200767

MEMORANDUM OPINION In this forcible

- detainer action, appellant, Angela D. Dowling

- Perez, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and writ of possession granting possession of certain real property to appellee, Legacy at Cypress

. We dismiss the appeal as moot

.2

The only issue in a forcible

- detainer action is the right to actual possession of the subject property , and the merits of any title dispute shall not be adjudicated. See Tellez v. Rodriguez , 612 S.W.3d 707, 709 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.) (citing T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 510.3(e)). An appeal from a forcible

- detainer action becomes moot if the ap pellant is no longer in possession of the property, unless the appellant holds and asserts “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession” of the property. See M arshall v. Hous

. Auth

. of the City of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782, 786

– 87 (Tex. 2006); Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass ’ n , 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Gallien v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. , No. 01

- 07

- 00075

- CV, 2008 WL 4670465, at *2

– 4 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 23, 200 8, pet. dism ’ d w.o.j.) (mem. op.). On May 3 , 2023, appellee filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that th is appeal is moot because the writ of possession was executed, “[a]ppellant was dispossessed of the lease[d] premises on March 22, 2023 when [the] writ of possession was executed , ” and possession was “returned

. . . back to” appellee

. Appellant did not respond to appellee’s motion to dismiss but has fil ed an appellan t’s “brief.” However, we conclude that appellant ’s “brief” fail s to assert a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession of the property. See Marshall , 198 S.W.3d at 787 ; Wilhelm , 349 S.W.3d at 768; see also Soza v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. , No. 01

- 11

- 00568

- CV, 2013 WL 3148616, at *1 (Tex.3

App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] June 18, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating appellant who failed to respond to appellee ’ s motion to dismiss had failed to assert potentially meritori ous claim of right to current, actual possession). Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal as moot. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f) ; see also Marshall , 198 S.W.3d at 785, 787, 790 ; Wilhelm , 349 S.W.3d at 769; Bey v. ASD Fin., Inc. , No. 05

- 14

- 00534

- CV, 2014 WL 4180933, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Aug. 11, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of forcible detainer action as moot because appellant no longer possessed property at issue)

. All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Farris.
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Checkers Drive-In Restaurants,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 16, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Keith E. Sirois, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |  |  |  | /s/ Keith E. Sirois                                   |  | 
| |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------- |  | 
| |  |  |  | Keith E. Sirois Chief Executive Officer July 25, 2003 |  | 



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Wilson-South v. Bank of Hawai'i

19387

4/17/97

Vacated and Remanded
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1528 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

reauthorize the comprehensive opioid abuse grant program, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2019 

Mr. JOYCE of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to reauthorize the comprehensive opioid 

abuse grant program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Comprehensive Opioid 

5 Program Extension Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘COPE Act of 

6 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1528 IH

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE 

2 OPIOID ABUSE GRANT PROGRAM. 

3 Section 1001(a)(27) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 

4 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 

5 10261(a)(27)) is amended by striking ‘‘and $330,000,000 

6 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘$330,000,000 for fiscal year 2019, and $400,000,000 for 

8 each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 28 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States 

Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation of door delivery for all business and residential customers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2015 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. JOYCE, and Mr. KING of New York) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the United States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation of door delivery for all business and residential customers. 

Whereas the United States Postal Service has announced 

that it may need to eliminate or reduce levels of door-todoor delivery service by the conversion of millions of 

home and businesses to centralized delivery or curbside 

and require those who wish to retain their door service 

to pay a delivery tax; 

Whereas reduced levels of service will have an immediate impact on current year revenue and a long-term impact on 

the viability of a business inevitably causing a larger drop 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 28 IH 

in revenue from service cuts than from the estimated savings of elimination or reducing door delivery; 

Whereas door delivery is a vital service that the American 

people have relied on since the 1860s in both rural and 

urban areas and ensures the security of mail and packages; 

Whereas voluntary conversion of businesses in 2013 equated 

to a mere 0.8 percent of voluntary conversions confirming 

that businesses depend on in-person contact with letter 

carriers to ensure transactional security and initiate new 

business and revenue for the Postal Service; 

Whereas millions of Americans will be forced to retrieve their 

daily mail and packages from a centralized location removing the daily convenience for Americans in receiving 

checks, medications and other essential items; and 

Whereas eliminating or reducing door delivery services will 

serve as a hindrance for the elderly and disabled who will 

be forced to retrieve their mail and packages and be required to submit to a cumbersome application process in 

order to opt out of the requirement: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the United States Postal Service should 

3 take all appropriate measures to ensure the continuation 

4 of door delivery for all businesses and residential cus5 tomers. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of Central Newspapers, Inc.

The following chart lists the subsidiaries of Central Newspapers, Inc. and the
state of incorporation of each as of February 28, 1997.

Name                             State of Incorporation
------------------------------   ----------------------
Bradley Paper Company            Delaware
Central Newsprint Company, Inc.  Indiana
Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc.    Indiana
McCormick and Company, Inc.      Louisiana
Muncie Newspapers, Inc.          Indiana
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.         Arizona
McCormick Graphics, Inc.         Louisiana
Lee Fulton, Inc.                 Louisiana
Career Services, Inc.            Arizona
Topics Newspapers, Inc.          Indiana
Westech Expocorporation          California
27345

#### Hawaii Providers Network, Inc. v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc.

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                             471
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,938
<INVENTORY>                                      8,795
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,135
<PP&E>                                           8,717
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           140
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,720
<SALES>                                         39,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,373
<CGS>                                           20,005
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   616
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,218
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,506
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,712
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,712
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>
September 27, 2006

25554

#### State v. Thomas

Affirmed
August 7, 1998

20727

#### Hill v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., Inc.

Reversed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply623Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  aoc.staffPermalinkMay 14, 2019 - 10:37amThanks for your comment, Cori! We would definitely like to recognize Roberto. The photo caption has been updated.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
January 13, 2006

25965

#### Pao v. Chung

Affirmed
#### State v. Bagasol

17474

4/10/96

Granted

- Hawai'i -, - P.2d -
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 321 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 321

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 18, 2015.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2146) to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to allow Federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic 
controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from governmental plans after age 
50, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider 
in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by 
the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee that the House 
concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and the 
motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
division of the question.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
20037

#### State v. Yoon

Affirmed
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 18, 2022.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 18, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A23D0011. MARSHA W. MIGNOTT v. THE STATE BAR OF GEORGIA 

FOUNDATION INC. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2021CV358186
#### Patricia Mountakis et al., Respondents, *v.*81st Street Theatre Corp., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 8, 1959.

*William G. Morris*and *James F. Mapp*for appellant.

*Frank G. Termini*for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The owner of a theatre or other place of public amusement is under a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to see that a patron is not injured due to the acts of other persons.

The standard of care which the defendant owed to the plaintiff, a patron of its theatre, should have been properly defined and it was error to charge that defendant owed a ‘ ‘ high degree of care to patrons for their safety.5 ’

Moreover a verdict of $3,000 to plaintiff Patricia Mountakis to compensate her for the injuries which she allegedly sustained, finds no support in the record.

Consequently the judgment, based upon the verdict returned by the jury, may not be permitted to stand.

The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hecht, J. P. and Tilzer, J., concur; Stetjer, J., dissents and votes to dismiss the complaint.

Judgment reversed, etc.
EXHIBIT (24) 19
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


The undersigned,  as Controller of West Texas Utilities Company (the "Company"),
hereby  makes,  constitutes  and  appoints  Paul J.  Brower  his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power and authority to execute in the name
and on behalf  of the  undersigned,  in any and all  capacities,  the  Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1998 and any and all  amendments  thereto,  to be
filed under the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  as  amended,  and any other
documents and  instruments  incidental  thereto,  and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto and all documents in connection therewith,  with the Securities
and Exchange Commission,  hereby granting to such  attorney-in-fact,  and agent,
full power and authority of substitution and revocation in the premises and full
power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary  to be done in and about the  premises,  as fully for all  intents and
purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person and hereby ratifying and
confirming all that such  attorney-in-fact and agent, may do or cause to be done
by virtue of this Power of Attorney.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I have hereunto  executed this Power of Attorney this 26th
day of January, 1999.


                                       /s/ R. Russell Davis
                                           R. Russell Davis
                                           Controller


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of January, 1999 by R. Russell 
Davis.


                                       /s/ Kit Hill
                                           Notary Public

My Commission Expires:     6-14-2001
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Michael T. Mino, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of T-3 EnergyServices, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.      /s/ MICHAEL T. MINO  Michael T. Mino
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARSHALL JERMAINE HARRIS, )

DOC #Y02591, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2139

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed March 8, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; William H. Burgess, III, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Dan Hallenberg, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
December 30, 2003

23292

#### State v. Salviejo

Dismissed